I have not seen any reply from a certain distinguished Englishman who
has recently been in America to the resolution passed by an American
women's society, and published in the Press, denouncing certain
alleged proceedings of his as a moral affront to public opinion in
America. The allegations were to the effect that he had invited
people to drink from his private store of alcoholic liquor in the
ante-rooms of some chapel where he had been speaking, and that his
daughter had smoked cigarettes in public. Whether the statements
were well-founded or an invention of the Press I do not know, nor for
the purpose I have in view does it matter. The incident interests
me, not as a question of morals but of manners. Morals are largely a
local thing, a question of latitude and climate, of custom and time.
They vary with the conditions of life and the habit of thought.
When we eat our morning rasher we are conscious of no moral offence,
but to the Jew it would be not merely a moral offence, but an
irreligious act. The difference is probably traceable to nothing
more than climatic conditions. With us a pig is a perfectly safe
article of diet, but in the East it is a perilous food; and being
also a tempting food it needed the inhibitions both of morality and
religion to prevent its consumption. I have no doubt that if the
Jewish religion had originated in the Western world, there would have
been no ordinance against pork in it. But while we may regard that
ordinance as irrelevant in this country, we should be wanting in good
manners if, on inviting a Jew to dinner, we offered him nothing but a
varied choice of pig's meat. We may consider his morality absurd,
but we have no right to flout it because we do not approve of it.
And the same thing, I think, applies to those who visit foreign
countries. It is their business to respect the morals and
conventions of those countries even if they do not share them or like
them. It is, for example, one thing for an American citizen who
loves wine and liberty to denounce Prohibition in his own country,
and quite another thing for a stranger on a visit to show disrespect
to the law of the land, however mistaken he may regard it. It seems
silly to us to try to get morally indignant at women smoking
cigarettes. It has become a commonplace which we accept without
comment. But it is not long since such a thing would have been
undreamed of in our world, and when a visitor from abroad who did it
deliberately would have given great and very proper offence. The
axiom "When in Rome do as Rome does" is a counsel of civility. It
does not mean that it is our duty to kiss the Pope's toe or adopt the
moral code of Rome ourselves; but it does mean that we should not
scoff at Roman ways or publicly, or semi-publicly, indicate that we
dislike them.
When I go to a foreign country I do my best to be inconspicuous, and
to pass myself off as one of the people. I do not succeed, for I
happen to be an insular person, who carries the marks of his origin
on him in every gesture, accent and movement. If I dislike a law in
my own country and think it should be altered, I have no hesitation
in holding it up to opprobrium, and even breaking it, if only in that
way can it be successfully fought. But it would be an impertinence
on my part to go to France and defy the liquor laws of that country
because I did not think they were stringent enough, or denounce the
inspection of women because I think it is a loathsome practice,
liable to the vilest insults and misuse. French morality accepts
these things, and I have no right of interference if I go there.
I am not sure that I even like moral missionaries from one country to
another. The offence, if it is an offence, is in a different
category from that of the man who publicly flouts the laws and
customs of another land in which he happens to be a visitor; but it
certainly borders on bad manners. I express no opinion about
"Pussyfoot" Johnson's gospel, but I confess I always feel an
irritation at his intrusions here. However much I wanted the country
to be converted to his point of view, I should still wish that he
would stay at home and cultivate his own garden, and leave us to look
after our own morals and practices. And by the same token I should
resent the idea of a person going from this country to America and
openly flouting its public morality, or taking sides in a domestic
controversy that happened to be raging there. In short, it is a
question not of morals, but of manners.
I do not think the idea I have in my mind could be better illustrated
than by a famous story of Spurgeon. I daresay it is familiar to some
of my readers, but it is so apposite and so good that they will not
object to renew its acquaintance. In the days of his unparalleled
popularity, when the great preacher filled the Tabernacle from floor
to ceiling, it was the custom of the young bucks sometimes to show by
their ill-manners their contempt for something they did not
understand. One night three of them went into the gallery with their
hats on, and refused to remove them when the attendant requested them
to do so. Spurgeon watched the incident, and when the preliminaries
of the service had been concluded and the time came for the sermon,
he prefaced his remarks with something like these words: "In all the
occasions of life it is our duty and should be our pleasure to
respect the feelings of others and the customs of others, even if we
do not share them. The other day I went into a Jewish synagogue and,
according to my practice when entering a place of worship, I removed
my hat. But, having done so, an attendant came to me and reminded me
that in the Jewish synagogue it was necessary that the head should be
covered. I thanked him and, of course, obeyed the reminder. Now"
(looking up to the gallery and raising his voice) "will those three
young Jews in the gallery show that respect to the customs of this
place of worship which I showed to theirs?"